Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: swamp forests, endemic and globally important BD
Evidence B:The two forest blocks under consideration by the project belong to the Congo Basin flooded forest that harbors a high level of biodiversity including some iconic species such as the Lowland Gorilla or the Forest Elephant.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Swamp forest very important for C2
Evidence B:The Congo Basin flooded forest is of great importance for the sequestration of carbon.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: but it does not appear to be formal IPLC governance - which I assume is a key aspect of this project
Evidence B:The project proposal describes the two regions into consideration as managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Well explained - for example cultural importance of lands, sacred groves and so forth and how the IPs actually use the BD (medicine, NTFPs)
Evidence B:The unique cultural significance of the areas to IPLC is very well explained with details that demonstrate the understanding of the cultural importance of the areas by the proponent.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Commercial Logging and mining - key threats and will be important for project to really address. Given Covid - should be no more “bush meat” hunting - and should have alternatives. Trophy hunting - how can/will that benefit the IPs. Importance roads having EIAs that really take into account IPs
Evidence B:The main threats are constituted by commercial logging and mining operations, uncontrolled wood extraction by local operators and poaching and shifting agriculture conducted by local populations.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: No really clear IPLC policy support - policy support tends to be general - relating to SDGs and National Dev Strat
Evidence B:There are a couple of large scale initiatives that are already going on that are based on the management of the natural resources by IPLCs. The national legislation has a provision for the participation of IPLC in the management of traditional territories and the management the forest for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Some support through an EC project - but not clear
Evidence B:In the context of the existing large carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation initiatives the government of Congo is actively supporting IPLC led conservation.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: REal time community forest monitoring, there might be other projects but not clear from text
Evidence B:There are existing IPLC-led initiatives funded by international donors in the region under consideration by the proposed project that constitute a good foundation for scaling up.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There are other projects in the area (WB-C2, CAFI) - but not clear how this project will related
Evidence B:The government of Congo has plans to develop more initiatives to prevent further deforestation to fight climate change. It is unclear if the approach of the government will fully integrate IPLC in the planning and the execution of the projects on the ground.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: But not clear how customary land rights will be recognized in practice. Also much of the proposed activities look more like capacity building - but for what. surely there should be a focus around governance and respect of their IPLCs
Evidence B:The objectives are to make sure that IPLC rights to manage their territories and managed the natural resources are clearly established, but it is unclear how well engaged the IPLC are in the context of this project that is largely NGO led.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: At present more a shopping list of Activities - and the ToC does not come across clearly
Evidence B:Advocacy and mapping activities are clearly described, by they are principally led by the proponent the is an NGO with he participation and for the benefit of the IPLC.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Securing the IPLCs is a key objective - but it is not clear how this will be achieved and what activities will be required to achieve (mapping, awareness, capacity, policy analysis, legal recognition, rights and responsibilities, and so forth)
Evidence B:How much lead the IPLC will have in the context ion the project implementation is unclear. IPLC are presented more like beneficiaries than true participants.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Partially aligned - but key area of securing land and management rights not clear
Evidence B:The budget presented by the proponent shows that 75% of it would be devoted to the functioning of the NGO with staff traveling for the capital city. This project may benefit the IPLC at the end but is not designed for IPLC to play a significative active role.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: WB - but not sure of links. Importance of mobilizing community roles and what they will actually do (so not all depends on donor funds
Evidence B:Co-financing is so far very limited and speculative.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The improved management of the two forest areas under consideration would already be an important achievement. The ecosystem restoration objective seems to be overestimated.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: OK, but the key will be how these indicators will be measured- at present it looks as though it will be quite difficult
Evidence B:Securing land titles for IPLC seems to be the most concrete and significant objectives in the list provided.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: not really, sorry
Evidence B:There are some interesting elements presented in the project such as the sharing of the carbon revenues with IPLC as well as the training of local NGOs and capacity building in the field of legal issues of IPLC and NGO.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: but need to really link activity areas to national priorities more strongly
Evidence B:The EoL builds on and contributes clearly to the NBSAP.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: some gender activities (gender grid, income generation) but not in terms of real empowerment
Evidence B:The proponent has clearly integrated the gender issue in the proposal and concrete activities have been identified with measurable impacts.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: Could be much clearer and stronger as to how lessons can be scaled up, how IPLC governance can be respected and recongized and so forth
Evidence B:The proposal is too much dependent on the capacity of the lead NGO and not enough building on the reinforcement of the capacity of the IPLC to be considered innovative or transformative.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Also has other IPLC partners
Evidence B:The IPLCs are marginal players in this project, They are mainly beneficiaries of activities initiated by a lead NGO with three modest local partners.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: networks, some funding from DfID and work with other groups and implement on the ground project
Evidence B:The demonstrated leadership is established at the macro level, but it is not sure if CJJ has a strong on the ground leadership in the two regions where they proposed to intervene. From the proposal it appears that CJJ would used this project to establish a base in the two proposed sites.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: 4 groups and reasonably well defined roles
Evidence B:The role of IPLC in this project is vague and the local partners selected do not seem to have a strong capacity. The project is largely relying on the NGO’s capacity that is capital based.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: has to follow WB procedures
Evidence B:CJJ has a recognized capacity in the advocacy related to IPLC issues. How this capacity can be applied to the proposed project, transposed to the two areas under consideration and transferred to the IPLC and local organizations that are partnering with CJJ is unclear.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: World Bank procedures, at least 3 decent projects being implemented
Evidence B:CJJ has a demonstrated capacity to manage budgets from different sources.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Not GEF standards - but seem to have experience with WB and DIFID safeguards
Evidence B:The proponent has experience with safeguards by no experience with the GEF